Fireman Sam the Islamaphobe.

Gilly said:
What? :confused:

Who said we weren't? :confused:

Something got into the cartoon that the makers didn't plan for or want. They've apologised for this. Why is that a problem?
Click to expand...

You were talking about the actions that Charlie Hebdo decided to do not being the worst thing. But the staff their were slaughtered.

It is something shot on a tv show in the west.

Why do they have to apologise though? What offence has been caused and why?
 
Plot twist, the Animators of Fireman Sam are all Muslim and have been inserting subliminal text from the Quran in to episodes for years, slowly brainwashing your children in your own living room.
 
RaohNS said:
You were talking about the actions that Charlie Hebdo decided to do not being the worst thing. But the staff their were slaughtered.
Click to expand...

No, I was talking about a page appearing in Fireman Sam, your understanding of which is evidenced by the next quote...

RaohNS said:
It is something shot on a tv show in the west.
Click to expand...

RaohNS said:
Why do they have to apologise though? What offence has been caused and why?
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone made them apologise, did they? Why are you talking about 'have to'?
 
Look I am hardly a fan of religion but I can see the context of how certain things vary between people.

Would I knock my mates baseball cap off messing around - yep - would I know my next door neighbours turban off - hell no because that would be really disrespectful whether he took offense or not afterwards is another thing.
 
Gilly said:
I don't think anyone made them apologise, did they? Why are you talking about 'have to'?
Click to expand...
I imagine the possibility of another Charlie Hebdo attack was the primary reason for their apology, they had to apologise whether they wanted to or not.
 
mrk said:
Who cares? I don't care. It's just a cartoon. There are more important things to be concerned about, like people who swish a teabag in their cup and call it a "brew".
Click to expand...

This is a very, very good point.

Xordium said:
Look I am hardly a fan of religion but I can see the context of how certain things vary between people.

Would I knock my mates baseball cap off messing around - yep - would I know my next door neighbours turban off - hell no because that would be really disrespectful whether he took offense or not afterwards is another thing.
Click to expand...

so is depicting a page of the Qur'an offensive or not? Because that's all that happened? and if it is, then that makes Miqdaad Versi as MASSIVE hypocrite when he's posting images of the same page on twitter.
 
enkoda said:
I imagine the possibility of another Charlie Hebdo attack was the primary reason for their apology, they had to apologise whether they wanted to or not.
Click to expand...

I doubt it. Fireman Sam is a kids show, it's supposed to be utterly non-offensive. They would have apologised regardless.
 
thedoc46 said:
ENOUGH OF THIS !!!!!! The Quran, and Islam needs to be ridiculed. Its a man made religion to control the masses and nothing else.

There was no Mohammed, there is no Allah.
Click to expand...

There was a Mohammed. He lived in the Sixth century and there's a tonne of historical evidence for him. Jesus is lacking hard evidence of his existence but in all probability did. Buddha historical evidence like Mohammed does, albeit more sparse - almost certainly there was a historical personage although his name was originally Gautama, not Buddha. Lao Tse has surprisingly little historical evidence for his existence despite having the Tao Te Ching attributed directly to him. Hinduism I don't know enough about.

The page, surprisingly, does appear to be a page from the Koran and I'd be very interested to know how it got in there and why.
 
Last edited:
Mr Jack said:
I doubt it. Fireman Sam is a kids show, it's supposed to be utterly non-offensive. They would have apologised regardless.
Click to expand...
Exactly, but there are certain elements of a certain religion that have proven themselves to take offence at things that we just laugh off, because we're normal human beings.
 
Gilly said:
No, I was talking about a page appearing in Fireman Sam, your understanding of which is evidenced by the next quote...


I don't think anyone made them apologise, did they? Why are you talking about 'have to'?
Click to expand...

Nobi was talking about this quote relating to the bullets:

Gilly said:
We found from Charlie Hebdo what happens with cartoons depicting this sort of thing.

Is it the worst thing in the world? No
Click to expand...

Ok. To rephrase then: Why did they feel the need to apologise what have they done wrong and how?
 
I think a few people are failing to see the point here. None of us are special ********** (which seems to be the phrase of the week here) so put aside whether it offends you or if you think anyone should be offended by it and ask what does its inclusion bring to the story being told?

Was the episode about a Muslim fireman ?
Was there any Muslim angle within the episode?

There is no reason for it to be there, its certainly not an accident so its either been done maliciously or its been done to promote the Quran. In context how would you feel it if was a page from a porn mag?

It has no place in a kids TV show, they are right to apologise for its inclusion and remove it. Does it need a full page in a newspaper? Pprobably not but fools lap this stuff up and it sells by the bucket load.
 
Last edited:
h4rm0ny said:
There was a Mohammed. He lived in the Sixth century and there's a tonne of historical evidence for him. Jesus is lacking hard evidence of his existence but in all probability did. Buddha historical evidence like Mohammed does, albeit more sparse - almost certainly there was a historical personage although his name was originally Gautama, not Buddha. Lao Tse has surprisingly little historical evidence for his existence despite having the Tao Te Ching attributed directly to him. Hinduism I don't know enough about.

The page, surprisingly, does appear to be a page from the Koran and I'd be very interested to know how it got in there and why.
Click to expand...
He may well have existed, but the point being made is that everything he claimed was made up. There is no better example of how people can be conned into believing any old tripe than that of Scientology.
 
maybe the animation company just used a stock bunch of document images and put them into the animation. who'd know what they were using unless they spoke arabic?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom